About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
and comprehensive package to shrink the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years and are meant the fiscal uncertainty that hampers economic growth and job creation. this remark does not represent the starting point for negotiation. represent tagamet savings and additional roadrunners for those of the. the two cannot be separated and were not separated last december when we were close to a bipartisan agreement. this budget provides achievable solutions to fiscal problems, the crucial a solution desired, we have to do more than focus on deficit and debt. the significance of balancing the budget is clear as ranking member then holland noted, i hope negotiate the groundbreaking agreement with congress to do just that as budget director oversaw three budget surpluses and worked with many on the left in right on a plan to pay off our debt. that does not mean we should make deficit reduction are one and only priority. in addition to ensuring sound fiscal fitting we will have everyone of these initiatives paid for in our deficit reduction package can i mean day donati done to the deficit. as the president ex
to have a flat tariff of 10% or 20% or 30% whatever it takes to get to a zero trade deficit that doesn't introduce a lot of corruption or a lot of dangers bad policymaking because it's a very simple policy. it's just determined by an arithmetical formula and there's no opportunity for anybody to play games. one of the good things about it if you have a flat tariff, is if you had a 30% tariff on imported goods that's not enough to relocate the production of t-shirts that united states because cost is too great. it's great to relocate things like silicon wafer fabrication so would tend to relocate back to the u.s. high value capital-intensive skill intensive industries which is of course what we want to do. those are the industries that are high-quality -- high-quality into she wants to have and those are the industries that don't want to lose. i point that out just to point out that if you do get serious about protectionism, protectionism has a logic to it which if you understand what that logic is, i think it would be possible for the u.s. to make a winner out of this. whether we shoul
and to think it gain access. [inaud last year, and i think, and if you look at this, we have, for every deficit, for every level of deficit, it's the -- [inaudible] we have witnessed the difference in the labor costs between different member states. [iudible increase and going down, slowly, but going down, not increasing. greece as risen up in the last quarter, this last year. they made a lot of process in reducing deficit as well. therefore, we are regaining confidence. if you look at markets, markets are very -- gained a lot of confidence, and bonds for all all the members areding italy, below. there used to be -- that's what they say. what we are doing now is the next step of ing abaning union. , we healady a great great -- you need strong european region of banks because our banking's cannot influence one member stating but several. we need the european -- the european -- been commended, implement of supervisory, things into coming weeks, has been already decide thed. we will build -- we have european, i think, relation on insurance. we have european regulation, just not yet decided, and th
to find a bipartisan way to reduce the deficit. thus far, it hasn't worked. we've reduced the debt by doing a number of different things, some $2.5 trillion worth. we've cooperated in that regard. the deep cuts required though by the sequester have failed to bring the republicans to the negotiating table to find more savings or more revenue. even after both the house and senate passed budget resolutions, the house republican leadership has refused to go to conference to work out our differences. republicans have been telling us for a long time that they wanted regular order. and we come to regular order, they don't want regular order. republicans are afraid to even be seen considering a compromise with democrats. and i speak more strongly that the republicans here in the senate are doing their objection here on going to conference more to protect the house because that applies so much more to the house republicans than it does the republicans over here. the republicans over there are afraid to be even seen considering a compromise with us. because republicans have refused to negoti
aancedproach to deficit reduction and strengthen the middle class. as i said, last week our focus in the next little while will be on guns and budget, talked about budget. i will be joined by my colleague, congressman mike thompson of california. congressman thompson is a vietnam vet, a wounded vietnam vet. he is a gun owner, hunter. is the head of our task force on gun violence prevention, and he is a co-author of the bipartisan bill in the house with peter king. to put forth a manchin-toomey compromise that failed, so sadly, in the senate last night. we are so disappointed. our sorrow was expressed so appropriately by president obama last night that i invited mike to join us here to tell you where we go from here and to answer the question that people are saying what can we do to change this. mike, would you speak -- thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, leader pelosi. it's a pleasure and honor to join you, to talk about and to answer any questions that you guys may have on gun violence prevention. -manchin amendment that failefailed last night, as i thk everybody knows. it was every
-inflicted wounds without adding one penny to the deficit. we've provided money, the money is there, we haven't spent it, we don't need to. we can use the savings from wrapping up two wars to avoid the full brunt of the sequester's arbitrary cuts. the congressional budget office said that would score; that money is available, it is money we could use. funding for the operation in ir a afgan has in alled overseas contin yeype account. since the worst of the seq cuts are creating an emergency situation, we should consider using thighs funds to offset their impact. these really are emergencies and we should do it. i am not proposing we use them to offset the entire sequester but congress has the power to avert the most painful sequester cuts using these mexico. 28 republicans in the senate and 174 republicans in the house would impose these sequester haphazard cuts. if those same republicans work with democrats, we could act to protect families and businesses and ensure our national defense and save millions of americans hours waiting at the airport. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presi
today to address three issues. number one, the economic deficit of less skilled immigration. the u.s. work force is changing american family is having fewer children and birthrates are now well below levels. 10,000 baby boomers are retiring every day. and the lush and her workers coming behind them are much more educated than their parents. in 196064% of american workers were high-school dropouts. today the number is less than 10%. together these three factors have had a dramatic effect on the pool of americans available to fill low-skill jobs. it is no accident that my members are constantly complaining about the difficulty finding workers. the pool have to draw on a shrinking. for those seeking higher, unskilled man of prime working age the supply of u.s. workers is literally half the size it was in 1970. if a thing, demand is growing. in $0.195,525 of every dollar spent on food was spent in a restaurant. today it is $0.50. one of the fastest growing occupations in america is some help aid. many less skilled immigrant workers and only then increasingly in years ahead. aside from
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)